The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   General Royal Discussion (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/)
-   -   Royalty and the Press (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/royalty-and-the-press-30076.html)

missmaggy 02-07-2011 01:47 PM

Royalty and the Press
 
A bit of a rant: I suppose I've got a bit of a new perspective (for me) and now I find I am forever seeing something that frankly annoys the stuffing out of me.

I've noticed that newspaper articles about Royalty constantly make stupid mistakes. For example, one newspaper called Prince William of Wales a 'crown prince') and another said that Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice would lose their HRHs upon marriage. I realize that the knowledge represented in these forums is somewhat specialized, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that London-based reporters specializing in covering Royal news for English newspapers could get these sorts of things wrong.

What I think is happening is that these 'errors' are being made deliberately because inevitably one of us, or someone like us, will write in and correct the 'error.'

Then, the paper can use this contact between paper and reader to promote sales of advertising space or justify high prices for same. The paper will say, see how attentive our readers are? How responsive they are?

I further suspect that opinion articles about Royalty are being written to provoke similar response and for similar reasons. Op-ed writers will complain about the ugliness of the Princess Royal's hat or insist that Prince William is "useless" (I sure hope none of those who say he's useless ever need to be sought or rescued by helicopter!)

Furthermore, I find annoying those who complain about the wealth and laziness of the Royal Family. Plenty of people are richer, but they don't get the constant attacks. Perhaps folks just like to criticize and complain? I dislike republicans attacking the RF on personal grounds. Ad hominem attacks will only hold the republican cause back. How about doing something practical, like demonstrating how the UK would be better as a republic?

The RF are attacked for being insufficiently transparent--yes, public money must be accounted for properly, but it's nobody's business who wears boxers and who wears briefs. As far as I can see, the Queen runs a branch of the government--her branch is responsible for executing certain laws and procedures, for conducting certain diplomatic tasks, for handling important hospitality arrangements, and for liasoning between the nonprofit sector (charities), the government, and the people. In the US, the president must carry out both head of state and head of government duties. One can see in photographs the physical strain this pair of jobs puts on one who is after all only a mortal man. With social duties handled by the RF, the PM can concentrate more (quality and quantity) on political and economic matters. With the mess in Egypt and its terrifying potential consequences, I sure don't want Mr Obama opening any hospitals just now!

I think that the UK needs to make up its mind about what it wants from their RF. It's unfair to constantly criticise. I remember before Princess Diana passed, the RF were depicted as inhuman, bereft of normal family feelings. This was seemingly confirmed in the days after she died, when they stayed in Scotland. Now, with Alistair Campbell's diaries published, we know that Princes William and Harry were balking at making a public spectacle because they were so upset and didn't want to do anything that could be construed as pleasing the press. So if the press were saying come to London, show us your sorrow, they were more determined to stay in Scotland. The RF were, after all, doing what real human beings would do--protecting the bereaved boys!

End rant. For now. God save The Queen (from the her critics)

Lumutqueen 02-07-2011 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy

I've noticed that newspaper articles about Royalty constantly make stupid mistakes. For example, one newspaper called Prince William of Wales a 'crown prince') and another said that Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice would lose their HRHs upon marriage. I realize that the knowledge represented in these forums is somewhat specialized, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that London-based reporters specializing in covering Royal news for English newspapers could get these sorts of things wrong.

I remember before Princess Diana passed, the RF were depicted as inhuman, bereft of normal family feelings.

Just to point out, if you're going to criticise the press for in correct titles. You might want to get Diana's title right.

missmaggy 02-07-2011 02:35 PM

yes, yes. I knew when I was doing it tho. In my heart, she's more of a Princess by right than many who were born to it... but what do you think of the substance of what I said

Lumutqueen 02-07-2011 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202267)
I've noticed that newspaper articles about Royalty constantly make stupid mistakes. For example, one newspaper called Prince William of Wales a 'crown prince') and another said that Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice would lose their HRHs upon marriage. I realize that the knowledge represented in these forums is somewhat specialized, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that London-based reporters specializing in covering Royal news for English newspapers could get these sorts of things wrong.

The press get things wrong because they are never told how things actually are. Charles is sometimes called the Crown Prince, which is not technically wrong it is just a title that has never been used in the UK. Whichever newspaper called William, the Crown Prince got it wrong yes but if you aren't a specialist royal correspondent, you wouldn't know. The BBC papers, or even the DM don't make that mistake.

Eugenie and Beatrice may loose their HRH's when they marry, they cannot pass them on and as William and Harry have kids they will move further and further down the line of succesion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202267)
What I think is happening is that these 'errors' are being made deliberately because inevitably one of us, or someone like us, will write in and correct the 'error.'

Then, the paper can use this contact between paper and reader to promote sales of advertising space or justify high prices for same. The paper will say, see how attentive our readers are? How responsive they are?

I don't think any newspaper does deliberate errors, what would the point be in that? How many people do you think actually write in and complain about a title error when they probably don't even understand whats being said or even care.

Sounds far fetched to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202267)
Furthermore, I find annoying those who complain about the wealth and laziness of the Royal Family. Plenty of people are richer, but they don't get the constant attacks. Perhaps folks just like to criticize and complain? I dislike republicans attacking the RF on personal grounds. Ad hominem attacks will only hold the republican cause back. How about doing something practical, like demonstrating how the UK would be better as a republic?

People are entitled to their opinion, there are many people who will look at the RF and say what are they good for except tourism? And I doubt anybody could really answer that question. Plenty of people are richer, because they have earnt the money they have. The royals haven't earnt their riches.
Please provide a way that people of the UK can demonstrate a republic would be better, and i'm sure they would?

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202267)
As far as I can see, the Queen runs a branch of the government--her branch is responsible for executing certain laws and procedures, for conducting certain diplomatic tasks, for handling important hospitality arrangements, and for liasoning between the nonprofit sector (charities), the government, and the people.

The Queen is a representative of her country, she doesn't execute any laws or procedures, she rubber stamps the papers she is duty bound to sign that is all. She has no power to do anything on her own. She doesn't do anything a President couldn't do just as easily.

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202267)
In the US, the president must carry out both head of state and head of government duties. One can see in photographs the physical strain this pair of jobs puts on one who is after all only a mortal man. With social duties handled by the RF, the PM can concentrate more (quality and quantity) on political and economic matters.

The PM is required to show himself doing "social duties" as well. He is not exempt from them. He attends the state visits that are held in the UK, and goes on some of them abroad if they are of significance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202267)
I think that the UK needs to make up its mind about what it wants from their RF. It's unfair to constantly criticise. I remember before Princess Diana passed, the RF were depicted as inhuman, bereft of normal family feelings.

Why do we need to make up our mind? The majority of people in this country does not care at all about the royal family, and are happy to pay the 63p a year it costs to keep them. There is a small minority of republicans who want the monarchy rid off, and as we go through the years that minority will increase, no doubt about it. What else is there to decide?

How is it unfair? These people are there to represent OUR country, if we don't like what we see we have the right to complain. It is the same with any government in the world, you don't like what they are doing, you say something about it. You don't keep quiet and let it continue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202267)
So if the press were saying come to London, show us your sorrow, they were more determined to stay in Scotland. The RF were, after all, doing what real human beings would do--protecting the bereaved boys!

When Diana passed away, the country wanted to see the RF mourn with them. The royals have always been private people, and the public could not understand this. That is all that IMO happened.


Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202287)
In my heart, she's more of a Princess by right than many who were born to it

Diana was never a Princess in her own right, so does not deserved to be called Princess Diana.

missmaggy 02-07-2011 06:54 PM

Ok, ok. At the time of her death, she was Diana, Princess of Wales, and I loved her. But if I'm going to rant about the failure of the press to get things right, I concede I should be correct myself.

Why would B&E lose their HRHs? They can't. Check DeBrett's. On marriage, a woman takes her husband's rank and the feminine form of his style and title. Therefore, upon marriage, she became HRH The Princess of Wales. The Honorable Deborah Mitford became (after a few intervening deaths) Her Grace the Duchess of Devonshire.

BUT, when a woman of higher rank marries a man of lower rank, she keeps her higher rank and style. Therefore, when Lady Jane Spencer married a plain Mister, she became Lady Jane Fellowes. See also HRH The Princess Mary married the Earl of Harewood and kept her HRH. As did the present Princess Royal. The HRH belongs to those who were born entitled to it, and it cannot be taken away from someone who was born with the right to it. Consequently, when BBC was introducing him prior to a radio speech, it referred to the former King Edward VIII as HRH The Prince Edward.

Similarly, the children of the Earl of Wessex are technically HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James. The decision has been taken to 'downsize' the RF and consequently the children are being raised without Princely rank and style, but that doesn't change their legal ownership of Princely rank and style.

So while B&E might wish to go without their HRHs, they won't be legally deprived of their ownership of this style and rank upon marriage. As the case of Edward VIII shows, one cannot renounce ownership of an HRH.

Nevertheless, it is reported in the English press that this will be so. Clearly, this sort of knowledge is more esoteric than I had first assumed.

These matters of title are dictated by Letters Patent issued by the Sovereign and have the force of law. Presumably the Sovereign has sought and recieved ministerial support for these, but they do not require a vote in Parliament. (And, by the way, legislation in the UK has no potency until signed into law by the Sovereign. A technicality, I know, but what I meant when I said the sovereign executes the law.)

A better way of obtaining a republic would be to stop ad hominem attacks against the RF but explaining the ways in which a republic would be superior. A place to start: how that 63 p per capita could be better spent on (military preparedness, national health, roads, dams, bridges, etc.)

Regarding inherited wealth: yes, well, that's what comes of living in a capitalist economy. You'd choose the alternative? Well, we've seen how that worked out. Bet you wouldn't turn down some inherited wealth. I sure haven't. I read the British papers--plenty of inherited wealth, why does the RF get such a disproportionate share of the ire?

Make up your mind: What I meant is it seems is that the RF are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are criticised for their lack of emotion and humanity prior to August 31, 1997, then they act in an emotional and human way, and get criticised for being insufficiently stoic and public. They are criticised for uselessness, but God help them if they ever try to do something helpful--see the last 30 years of the life of The Prince of Wales. They're criticised for flaunting their inherited wealth but then criticised for wearing old but still very presentable clothing, or for (horrors!) buying High Street fashions (Kate M.), or for declining to go about the the gilded glass coach (Poor Kate again).

So what I'm saying is that the citizens of the UK and the other nations which claim the UK's sovereign as their own--you all need to clarify what you want. Should the Queen go? I'm betting she would, if asked. I have no inside information, but she's always struck me as a deeply patriotic lady who really does want the best for her people. So if they want her to go, she'll go. And if they want her to stay, she'll stay.

If you decide they need to go, that's the end of it. But, if you decide to keep them, I think it is necessary to clarify exactly what is expected of the RF so they won't run into the damned if you do, damned if you don't problem I described above.

Because the constant stream of contradictory criticism is inhumane to the RF. They're human beings and they didn't choose to subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny, unlike politicians who are really just asking for it. I've thought about how I would react were I to be subjected to similar press coverage. I imagine I'd be out of my head inside 20 minutes, running in circles shrieking "There's no pleasing these people!" and ending up sucking my thumb in a fetal position in a corner.

Lumutqueen 02-16-2011 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202364)
Why would B&E lose their HRHs? They can't. Check DeBrett's. On marriage, a woman takes her husband's rank and the feminine form of his style and title. Therefore, upon marriage, she became HRH The Princess of Wales. The Honorable Deborah Mitford became (after a few intervening deaths) Her Grace the Duchess of Devonshire.
BUT, when a woman of higher rank marries a man of lower rank, she keeps her higher rank and style. Therefore, when Lady Jane Spencer married a plain Mister, she became Lady Jane Fellowes. See also HRH The Princess Mary married the Earl of Harewood and kept her HRH. As did the present Princess Royal. The HRH belongs to those who were born entitled to it, and it cannot be taken away from someone who was born with the right to it. Consequently, when BBC was introducing him prior to a radio speech, it referred to the former King Edward VIII as HRH The Prince Edward.

They can, Charles or William can take them away from them. They can also choose, when they are married to be known as Mrs Dave Clark or whatever. I know my titles thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202364)
Similarly, the children of the Earl of Wessex are technically HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James. The decision has been taken to 'downsize' the RF and consequently the children are being raised without Princely rank and style, but that doesn't change their legal ownership of Princely rank and style.

Again; I know this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202364)
These matters of title are dictated by Letters Patent issued by the Sovereign and have the force of law. Presumably the Sovereign has sought and recieved ministerial support for these, but they do not require a vote in Parliament. (And, by the way, legislation in the UK has no potency until signed into law by the Sovereign. A technicality, I know, but what I meant when I said the sovereign executes the law.)

The Monarch rubber stamps the laws, she has no say in what actually goes on in her own country. However, when it comes to the army, they swear allegiance to The Queen not the state which prevents the government using the army against it's own people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202364)
A better way of obtaining a republic would be to stop ad hominem attacks against the RF but explaining the ways in which a republic would be superior. A place to start: how that 63 p per capita could be better spent on (military preparedness, national health, roads, dams, bridges, etc.)

Could you please provide some of these so called attacks? If the UK wanted a republic, they would ask for it. They don't want one, so what's the issue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202364)
Regarding inherited wealth: yes, well, that's what comes of living in a capitalist economy. You'd choose the alternative? Well, we've seen how that worked out. Bet you wouldn't turn down some inherited wealth. I sure haven't. I read the British papers--plenty of inherited wealth, why does the RF get such a disproportionate share of the ire?

You're suggesting that the press attack every single person who has inherited some wealth?
You said plenty of people are richer, nothing mentioned about inherited wealth. Inherited wealth has most likely been earnt one way or another, how did the RF earn their wealth? The Royal Family are our representatives, we are entitled to share our opinion on their wealth.


Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202364)
Make up your mind: What I meant is it seems is that the RF are damned if they do and damned if they don't. They are criticised for their lack of emotion and humanity prior to August 31, 1997, then they act in an emotional and human way, and get criticised for being insufficiently stoic and public. They are criticised for uselessness, but God help them if they ever try to do something helpful--see the last 30 years of the life of The Prince of Wales. They're criticised for flaunting their inherited wealth but then criticised for wearing old but still very presentable clothing, or for (horrors!) buying High Street fashions (Kate M.), or for declining to go about the the gilded glass coach (Poor Kate again).

And? The problem is? This is not disimilar to other people in the world. Like I said the majority of people don't care about the BRF. The most articles we get are from the Daily Mail are quite clearly biased towards hating the BRF, and you can tell by the comments on the bottom of the articles. This is the 5% maybe of people who have issue with their own life, so like to take it out on other people. The day to day person in the UK doesn't care about the gilded coach, the clothes that Kate wears or the emotion that the royals show. They're happy with their own lives.


Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202364)
So what I'm saying is that the citizens of the UK and the other nations which claim the UK's sovereign as their own--you all need to clarify what you want. Should the Queen go? I'm betting she would, if asked. I have no inside information, but she's always struck me as a deeply patriotic lady who really does want the best for her people. So if they want her to go, she'll go. And if they want her to stay, she'll stay.

If the UK was asked on the issue of keeping the Monarchy, they would say yes, keep it.
Other nations are dealing with the issue of keeping the Monarch as their head of state. They have bigger things to worry about first, for example in Australia with the floods.
I don't see why you're insisting on us having a referndum, what does it matter?
The Royal Family is their to represent our country and the commonwealth, the way they should do that is different in everyones eyes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by missmaggy (Post 1202364)
Because the constant stream of contradictory criticism is inhumane to the RF. They're human beings and they didn't choose to subject themselves to this kind of scrutiny, unlike politicians who are really just asking for it. I've thought about how I would react were I to be subjected to similar press coverage. I imagine I'd be out of my head inside 20 minutes, running in circles shrieking "There's no pleasing these people!" and ending up sucking my thumb in a fetal position in a corner.

Do you think they really care? They're used to it. You're one person fighting a loosing battle. The Royal Family are their to represent their country, they are bound to be criticised. Just like every single President and Prime Minister in the world.
They didn't choose no, but they remain. Would you rather be a teacher with no criticism or The Queen with little criticism and a hell of a lot of cash to make you feel better?
This family, every royal family knows how to deal with criticism. Ordinary people don't.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises